Study on the microstructure and properties of laser-cladded AlCoCrFeNiCu0.5-xNbₓ high-entropy alloy coatings

Mingsai Zhang; Shufeng Sun; Jin Wang; Fengyun Zhang; Yadi Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0342446

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 28, 2025
22 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Wislei Riuper Osório, Editor Dear Dr. sun, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wislei Riuper Osório Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work was support by 111 project of China [D21017]; Shandong Provincial Key Research and Development Program (International Science and Technology Cooperation)[No.2024KJHZ002]; Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [No. ZR2023ME156]; Double Hundred Plan" Talent Program of Shandong Province [WSR2023055];National Natural Science Foundation of China (52405492);Qingdao Natural Science Foundation [24-4-4-zrjj-68-jch].” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments: Based on the Reviewer’s comments and suggestions, it is suggested that a MAJOR REVISION be provided. For this, all rebuttals should be detailed and solved [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Clarity of Objectives The introduction is comprehensive but overly long. The novelty of combining Cu and Nb should be emphasized earlier, with a clearer statement of the research gap that differentiates this study from prior work on Ti, Mo, CeO₂, and other elements. Consistency of Microhardness Values There is a discrepancy between the values reported in Section 3.3 (C5 ~696 HV) and the Conclusions (769 HV). The authors should verify and harmonize all numerical values throughout the manuscript. Statistical Analysis While the methods mention repeating electrochemical tests at least three times, the figures (hardness, friction, EIS, polarization) do not show error bars or deviations. Including statistical data would increase the reliability of the results. Figures and Captions Several figure legends are descriptive rather than interpretative (e.g., “Microstructure of coatings C1–C6”). To improve scientific communication, captions should highlight the main findings (e.g., “Transition from equiaxed to cellular microstructure with Nb addition”). Wear Mechanism Evidence The discussion identifies adhesive and abrasive wear, but this is not fully supported by quantitative analysis. Could the authors provide wear track depth, wear volume, or other quantitative evidence to substantiate the proposed mechanisms? Corrosion Mechanism The manuscript provides a strong narrative on the role of Cu and Nb in corrosion resistance. However, a schematic diagram showing the formation and stabilization of the passive film would enhance clarity and impact. References The reference list is up to date, but some entries appear truncated or inconsistently formatted. A careful review of the reference style and completeness is necessary to meet journal requirements. Language and Style The manuscript is readable, but several sections contain long, repetitive sentences. A thorough language polishing would improve fluency and conciseness. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Dr. Yuri Alexandre Meyer ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342446.r001
Revision 1
1 Dec 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewers Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-46975 Title: Study on the Microstructure and Properties of Laser-Cladded AlCoCrFeNiCu₀.₅₋ₓNbₓ High-Entropy Alloy Coatings We sincerely appreciate the Academic Editor and Reviewer #1 for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are grateful for the constructive and valuable comments, which have greatly helped us improve the quality, clarity, and rigor of the work. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to all suggestions. Below, we provide detailed point-by-point responses. All modifications in the revised manuscript are highlighted using Track Changes. In the article, the parts marked in blue font are deleted, and the parts marked in red font are newly added Academic Editor Comments and Author Responses 1.Manuscript Formatting and Style Compliance Response： We have revised the manuscript to conform fully to the PLOS ONE formatting guidelines. File naming, figure formatting, table labeling, font consistency, and section organization have been corrected according to the template instructions. 2. Funding Statement Correction Response: The previously included funding information in the Acknowledgments section has been removed and the Funding Statement has been updated. The corrected Funding Statement is as follows: Funding Statement: This work was supported by the 111 Project of China [D21017]; Shandong Provincial Key Research and Development Program (International Science and Technology Cooperation) [2024KJHZ002]; Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2023ME156]; "Double Hundred Plan" Talent Program of Shandong Province [WSR2023055]; National Natural Science Foundation of China [52405492]; and Qingdao Natural Science Foundation [24-4-4-zrjj-68-jch]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The Acknowledgments section has been updated accordingly. 3. Data Availability Confirmation Response: All raw data necessary to replicate the study results, including numerical values behind plotted graphs, hardness and friction data, have now been provided as Supporting Information files (S1 Dataset). We have updated the Data Availability Statement as follows: Data Availability: All relevant data are included within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files (S1 Dataset). 4. ORCID Validation Response: The corresponding author has completed ORCID registration and validation through Editorial Manager. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: A clear in-text citation to Table 5 has been added in Section3.5 Corrosion Friction Performance of the manuscript. 6. Citation Recommendations Response: We reviewed all suggested literature and incorporated citations in cases where the referenced works were relevant and supportive to the context. Citations were not added where relevance could not be established to avoid unnecessary or forced referencing. Reviewer Comments and Author Responses 1. Clarity of Objectives / Novelty Not Highlighted Early Reviewer Comment: The introduction is comprehensive but overly long. The novelty of combining Cu and Nb should be emphasized earlier, with a clearer statement of the research gap. Response: Thank you very much for this important suggestion. We have shortened the Introduction and moved the novelty statement forward, emphasizing the unique role of the Cu+Nb dual-alloying strategy and how it differs from previous approaches using single strengthening elements such as Ti, Mo, and CeO₂. Revision Made: Section 1 (Introduction), Delete some content from paragraphs 4, 5 and 7, Paragraph 8 rewritten. Revised Sentence Added: In this study, AlFeCoCrNiCu₀.₅₋ₓNbₓ (x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5) high-entropy alloy (HEA) coatings with varied Cu and Nb contents were fabricated by laser cladding. The synergistic effects of Cu and Nb on the coatings’ microstructure, phase constitution, hardness, friction and wear behavior, and corrosion resistance were systematically evaluated. Guided by a “structure–interface–environment” co-optimization framework, Cu was employed to stabilize the solid-solution matrix, densify the microstructure, and improve heat/mass-transport pathways, while Nb was utilized to regulate phase architecture and reinforce the robustness of the surface passive film, thereby balancing the dual requirements of wear resistance and corrosion protection. This strategy differs from conventional single-element approaches and highlights a key novelty: by tuning the Cu/Nb ratio, a simultaneous compromise between “toughness–hardness” and “densification–passivation” is achieved. The results elucidate how elemental interactions govern performance optimization, providing theoretical guidance and a practical reference for the deployment of AlFeCoCrNiCu₀.₅₋ₓNbₓ coatings in applications demanding enhanced anti-wear and anti-corrosion capabilities. 2. Consistency of Microhardness Values Reviewer Comment: There is a discrepancy between Section 3.3 (C5 ~696 HV) and the Conclusions (769 HV). Response: We appreciate the reviewer for pointing this out. We carefully checked the original hardness data and confirmed that the correct microhardness of C5 is 696 HV, not 769 HV. The error in the conclusion section has been corrected. Revision Made: Section 4 (conclusion) Paragraph 3 Revised Sentence Added: The coating achieves its highest hardness (696.11 HV) at x = 0.4, representing a 228.4% increase over the substrate. 3. Statistical Analysis and Error Bars Reviewer Comment: The figures do not show error bars. Statistical analysis should be included. Response: We fully agree. We have now included error bars representing standard deviations for: Hardness results ,Friction coefficient (COF) and Wear rate Revision Made: Figures 6 and 9 updated to include error bars. 4. Figure Captions Need to Highlight Main Findings Reviewer Comment: Captions are descriptive rather than interpretative. Response: We have revised all figure captions to highlight the key scientific findings rather than merely labeling the figures. Example Change: Fig 2. XRD pattern of AlFeCoCrNiCu0.5-xNbx HEAs coating(a)20-90°; (b) Enlarged view at 44-45°. Fig 3. Transition from equiaxed to cellular microstructure with Nb addition (a) C1; (b) C2 (c) C3; (d) C4; (e) C5; (f) C6. Fig 8. Three-dimensional wear track morphologies and corresponding cross-sectional profiles of the coatings after wear (a) C1; (b) C2 (c) C3; (d) C4; (e) C5; (f) C6. Fig 10. Morphology of AlFeCoCrNiCu0.5-xNbx HEAs coating after wear (a) C1; (b) C2 (c) C3; (d) C4; (e) C5; (f) C6. Fig 15. Schematic of passive-film and microstructure regulation by Cu and Nb in AlFeCoCrNiCu0.5₋ₓNbₓ laser-cladded coatings (a)Optimal (b)Non-optimal. 5. Wear Mechanism Evidence Needs Quantitative Support Reviewer Comment: Provide wear track depth or wear volume. Response: We have now added: 3D confocal wear track morphologies, Cross-sectional depth profiles, Wear volume estimation and specific wear rate comparison.These are included as new Figures 8 and 9. This additional quantitative evidence strongly supports the identification of adhesive vs. abrasive wear mechanisms. Newly added content: Fig 8 shows the three-dimensional wear track morphologies of coatings C1–C6 obtained by laser confocal microscopy, together with the corresponding cross-sectional profiles. The quantitative measurements further substantiate the above trends. For C1, the wear track width and depth are about 635.2 μm and 10.83 μm, respectively, indicating a relatively large material removal volume, which is consistent with its higher specific wear rate (9.72 × 10⁻⁵ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹). The C2 coating exhibits a narrower and slightly shallower wear scar (471.9 μm, 9.45 μm), corresponding to a reduced wear rate of 6.25 × 10⁻⁵ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹. The C3 coating shows the narrowest track width (296.5 μm) with a moderate depth (13.23 μm), resulting in the smallest effective cross-sectional area and thus the lowest wear rate (2.70 × 10⁻⁵ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹) among all coatings. This observation is in good agreement with its lowest COF, confirming that the optimized Cu/Nb ratio in C3 effectively suppresses both friction and wear. In contrast, the C4 coating presents the widest and deepest wear track (707.9 μm, 16.27 μm), implying a significantly larger worn volume, which corresponds well to its highest wear rate (1.60 × 10⁻⁴ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹) and highest COF. The C5 coating exhibits an intermediate wear scar (368.1 μm, 8.96 μm) and a moderate wear rate (4.58 × 10⁻⁵ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹), while the C6 coating shows a relatively wide and deep track (469.7 μm, 10.41 μm) with an increased wear rate of 6.77 × 10⁻⁵ mm³·N⁻¹·m⁻¹. As illustrated in Fig 9, the variation of specific wear rate follows a similar tendency to that of the steady-state COF: C3 exhibits the lowest COF and wear rate, C4 shows the highest values for both, and the other compositions lie in between. This consistent correlation between friction behavior, wear rate, and 3D wear morphology further verifies the reliability of the tribological evaluation. 6. Corrosion Mechanism Would Benefit from a Schematic Diagram Reviewer Comment: A passive film formation schematic should be added. Response: We agree and have added a new schematic (now Fig. 15) that visualizes and the schematic diagram was analyzed: Cu effect on FCC stabilization, Nb-promoted Laves phase dispersion,Formation and repair of Cr₂O₃–Nb₂O₅–Al₂O₃ passive film,This significantly improves clarity of the corrosion mechanism discussion. Revision Made: Section 3.8 (Corrosion mechanism of AlCoCrFeNiCu0.5-xNbₓ coatings) Paragraphs 2,3 and 5 Newly added content: As schematically summarized in Fig 15 (a), moderate Cu works in concert with Cr, Nb and Al to build a dense composite film (Cr₂O₃ backbone, Nb₂O₅ defect suppression/re-passivation, and Al₂O₃ stability), which is reflected by the upward arrows indicating Ecorr↑, Icorr↓, and Rp↑. In contrast, Fig 15(b) illustrates two non-optimal cases: (i) excess Cu favors a Cu₂O-containing, less cohesive film; and (ii) excess Nb yields continuous grain-boundary (GB) Laves (purple band), which facilitates intergranular attack and undermines passivation. This behavior is consistent with Fig 15, where the balanced Cu–Nb condition produces a structurally coherent, self-healing film (a), whereas Cu-rich or Nb-rich conditions deteriorate film integrity and electrochemical metrics (b). Accordingly, Fig 15 (a) corresponds to the C3 condition: an FCC matrix + finely dispersed Laves “pinning” particles beneath a Cr₂O₃–Nb₂O₅–Al₂O₃ film, delivering the best combination of highest Ecorr, lowest Icorr, and largest Rp among the investigated coatings; the right-hand panels depict the Cu-rich and Nb-rich departures from this optimal balance. 7. Reference Formatting Issues Reviewer Comment: Some entries appear truncated or inconsistent. Response: We have thoroughly checked and corrected all reference formatting to meet PLOS ONE reference style requirements. 8. Language and Style Polishing Reviewer Comment: Several sections contain long or repetitive sentences. Response: We have revised the manuscript to improve language clarity, remove redundancy, and streamline transitions. We also performed full professional proofreading to ensure grammatical correctness. Closing Statement We sincerely thank Academic Editor and Reviewer #1 for the thoughtful and encouraging comments. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript, and we hope it is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342446.r002
2 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Wislei Riuper Osório, Editor Dear Dr. sun, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wislei Riuper Osório Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments: Although it is observed that a great number of improvements are included, there still remained some weaknesses to be solved before its final publication, as followed: 1. The abstract should be reworked in order to only “SIMPLE PRESENT” verbal tense be used. 2. All subsections of the section 2 should be revised and all dimensions and values accompanied with their corresponding error ranges. At least the equipment error should be considered. 3. In subsection 2.4, it is stated that a potential scan rate of 1mV/s is used. Considering this point, the followed sentences and its references should be cited/included. “It is remarked that potential scan rate has an important role in order to minimize the effects of distortion in Tafel slopes and corrosion current density analyses, as previously reported [AA-CC]. However, based on these reports, it is experimentally observed that the adopted 1 mV/s has no deleterious effects on those Tafel extrapolations to determine the corrosion current densities of the examined samples.” [AA] Duarte T, Meyer Y.A. Osório W.R. The Holes of Zn Phosphate and Hot Dip Galvanizing on Electrochemical Behaviors of Multicoatings on Steel Substrates. Metals 2022, 12(5): 863; https://doi.org/10.3390/met12050863 [BB] Zhang X.L., Jiang Zh.H., Yao Zh.P, Song Y., Wu Zh.D. Effects of scan rate on the potentiodynamic polarization curve obtained to determine the Tafel slopes and corrosion current density. Corrosion Science. 2009, 51: 581-587. [CC] E. McCafferty. Validation of corrosion rates measured by Tafel extrapolation method. Corr. Scie 47 (2005) 3202-3215 . 4. Considering Fig. 2, it is obligatory that its corresponding JCPDS file numbers be included. This can be made into the main text and optionally also into the corresponding figure caption. 5. At Table 3, the hardness unit is equivocate. It should be replaced with “HV” instead “Hv”. Additionally, its corresponding error ranges should be depicted. This is a mandatory action. 6. Nyquist plots shown into Figs. 13 and 14 are depicted erroneously. This considering the Y and X axes. Based on the fact the Nyquist plots can depict depressed semi arcs, it is mandatory that both X and Y axes be in same scale. This is a commonly and conventional practice among the corrosionists and electrochemical researchers. 7. Tafel extrapolations should be depicted into Fig. 13(d) and Fig. 14(d). These will confirm those values reported. It seems that there exists some no agreeing with those reported. Please, revise it. 8. Another weakness point concerns to the CNLS simulation and corresponding equivalent circuit. Since EIS parameters are determined, at least, it is expected that an equivalent circuit be depicted and discussed. Also, CNLS simulations lines (fitting) is obligatory to be included into the revised version of the manuscript. To guide line the Authors concern to CNLS, i.e. complex non-linear least squares (CNLS) simulation, there are some reference to be consulted: [DD] Y. A. Meyer, R.S. Bonatti, A.D. Bortolozo, W.R. Osório. Electrochemcial behavior and compressive strength of Al-Cu/xCu composites in NaCl solution. Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 25(2021) 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10008-020-04890-x [EE] Bryan Hirschorn and A. Lasia (book: Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy and its applications, 2014). [FF] B. Hirschorn, M. E. Orazem, B. Tribollet, V. Vivier, Isabelle Frateur and M. Musiani. Determination of effective capacitance and film thickness from constant-phase-element parameters. Electrochimica Acta, 55 (2010) 6218-6227 . 9. Another electrochemical weakness verified in the proposed manuscript is the values “Icorr” shown into Table 7. If really “Icorr” are determined, it seems that new sentences should be included to explain its calculation and limitation. However, it seems that Authors have tried to determine the experimental corrosion current density, i.e. “icorr”. This is calculated from those Tafel (anode and cathode branches from the potentiodynamic polarization curves), while “Icorr” means the corrosion rate, and it is differently determined. This is also obligatory revision. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342446.r003
Revision 2
19 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the Academic Editor and the reviewers for their constructive comments on our manuscript (PONE-D-25-46975R1), “Study on the Microstructure and Properties of Laser-Cladded AlCoCrFeNiCu₀.₅₋ₓNbₓ High-Entropy Alloy Coatings.” We have revised the manuscript thoroughly and addressed all editor/reviewer comments point-by-point. In the revised submission, we provide: (1) a marked-up manuscript with Track Changes, (2) a clean revised manuscript, and (3) a separate “Response to Reviewers” document . Major updates include revising the Abstract tense, adding uncertainty/error ranges in Section 2, clarifying the polarization scan-rate rationale with appropriate citations, adding JCPDS/PDF numbers for XRD, correcting hardness units and adding error ranges, redrawing Nyquist plots with identical axis scaling, adding Tafel extrapolation lines, and including CNLS fitting curves and the equivalent circuit for EIS; we also corrected the notation and explanation of icorr.We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for further consideration. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342446.r004
25 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Wislei Riuper Osório, Editor Study on the Microstructure and Properties of Laser-Cladded AlCoCrFeNiCu0.5-xNbₓ High-Entropy Alloy Coatings PONE-D-25-46975R2 Dear Dr. sun, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Wislei Riuper Osório Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Based on the revised version of the proposed manuscript, it is observed that all suggestions and modifications were provided. With this, it deserves its final publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342446.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Wislei Riuper Osório, Editor PONE-D-25-46975R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Sun, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Wislei Riuper Osório Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342446.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .